Talk:Climate change denial

Merged content from climate change conspiracy theory

I've just carried out the merger from climate change conspiracy theory to here. More work is required to condense this part and remove repetition. Regarding the current structure, I am wondering if "climate change conspiracy theories" should remain as a main level heading or if it should be moved to be within "categories"? (which is how it was before I carried out the merger). Is "conspiracy theories" simply a type of denial on par with the other types that are listed under "categories"? EMsmile (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a sub-category. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think so too but I am unsure how to set it up in the current structure: if "conspiracy theories" became a Level-1 heading (instead of a main heading) then it would be a lot bigger than the other sub-sections. So maybe some of the content that is currently under "conspiracy theories" would have to be moved to other sub-sections to create a better balance. Either way, we will have to condense this article as it's too big now (79 kB (12282 words) "readable prose size"). EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've condensed the section on conspiracy theories now. EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of "unwarranted" doubt in the lead

I previously reverted the use of "unwarranted" in the opening sentence, due to the fact that it seems unnecessary with the use of "pseudoscientific" as a descriptor immediately before. To avoid edit warring and per WP:BRD, I have reverted my restoration of this preferred revision, and am instead opening up discussion here to see what other editors think. Do you believe "unwarranted" belongs in the lead, or would you say it is unnecessary? I think I have stated quite clearly that I fall in the latter category, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Hob Gadling: and @DVdm: per discussion at User talk:Hob Gadling. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I.m.o. the qualifier belongs in the lead, as it is backed by the content in the article body. I agree with Hob Gadlin's reasoning as expressed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Doubt is paramount to science. As CC denial flatly contradicts the scientific consensus, the doubt is inherently unwarranted. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That is completely correct. My issue is this, though -- it seems like a somewhat unnecessary adjective, given the description of the dismissal and doubt as pseudoscientific immediately before. I'm not arguing against your point: the doubt is very much inherently unwarranted. For me this isn't a question of validity, it's a question of sufficiency -- does unwarranted really belong, when the description of it as pseudoscientific could probably get the job done on its own? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and think that "unwarranted" can go; also in the interest of readability, for non-native speakers. EMsmile (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. This was resolved already, it was stable for three weeks, and now this [1].

Can somebody please explain how warranted doubt constitutes denial? When the data were still viewed as inconclusive, maybe in the 1960s, was that already denial, or was it normal science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think for the purposes of the first sentence of the lead, it is better to use a simple sentence. Whether doubts are warranted or not could be discussed later in the article. (in fact it already is). Also the first sentence actually says "doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change" which means it is per se unwarranted. This is not the doubt & discussions within the scientific community about some nuances of the processes, e.g. how much methane the thawing permafrost will release and so forth.

Also as is explained later in the article, the deniers purposefully use the word "doubt" and have spread doubt on purpose to sow confusion. So perhaps the term "doubt" is rather loaded. Thinking about it further, perhaps it's not even the ideal word to use in the first sentence at all.

Let's compare with the first sentence in the corresponding German Wikipedia article (translated here with Deepl): Climate change denial (sometimes also referred to as climate denial, climate science denial or denial of man-made global warming) is a form of science denial characterised by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing or fighting the scientific consensus of climate research on current global warming. (the term "doubt" does not appear). EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now changed the first sentence accordingly. This removes the need for further discussions on "doubts (warranted/unwarranted)". I've also taken out the emphasis on pseudoscience as I don't think this is key. Rather, I have linked to science denial which I think is better. Pseudoscience is still mentioned later but does not need to be in the first sentence. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

which means it is per se unwarranted Now I get it. Thanks. Also, I agree that the new version is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree the need version is better, but the third sentence has "Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is ...", which could be clearer as "unwarrented doubts". Taking on board readability for non-native speakers, I'll try "includes unreasonable doubts". . diff . . dave souza, talk 07:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing over to long ref style and removing quotes

I am changing over to long ref style because it's just easier for when text is transcribed with excerpts. Also, it's easier to see if one publication is used multiple times. In the process, I have also removed those long quotes from the references. They could be put back in but I would argue that they are not needed and that they make the ref list unnecessarily long and unwieldy. If people want to read up on the details they can just go to the publication in question (unless it's behind a paywall, I guess). EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I plan to continue along these lines but I should probably wait a few days in case someone objects that I am taking out the quotes from the ref list? In my opinion, those quotes are not needed and don't help the reader much. I don't think they are "standard practice" (anymore (?)). The only argument for keeping them that I can think of is when the source is behind a paywall. But even then, just those few quoted sentences don't help the reader so much either as they cannot verify the context unless they have access to what is behind the paywall. Overall, I think it makes the reference list more manageable without those long quotes. Pinging User:dave souza because I think you might have been an editor who added those quotes in the first place (?). EMsmile (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, seems like there are no objections to this, so I'll continue along the same lines. EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've completed this process now. It's all in long ref style now and without those quotes. EMsmile (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the context of discussions has changed and that looks reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sentence on "false flags"

I am not really happy with this sentence that was added earlier this month. What is meant with "false flags" and does it really work for us to have one statement with six references? Should it be broken up into more specific statements rather than all lumped together? I mean this sentence:

False flags and controlling the weather: Extreme weather events, including wildfires and floods, have been attributed by conspiracy theorists to laser beams, deliberate actions by government or the antifa movement, and weather engineering such as cloud seeding. EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with false flags, which is about actions by humans blamed on other humans. Laser beams and so on is about naturally caused events (on which humans in general have an influence via climate change) blamed on specific humans. The title sounds like WP:OR. The first source connects the claims to politically motivated activists seeking to downplay the potential impact of climate change, so it is not WP:SYNTH to add it here. (I cannot access the second, and the third makes it difficult for me, so I stopped checking.) That does not mean it is relevant enough to include. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've deleted that section now because it's unclear and messy; would take too long to tidy up; likely repetitive with what's there already. EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Content about climate change denial scientists based on the memoirs of Kevin Trenberth

I plan to add a bit of content about climate change denial scientists based on the memoirs of Kevin Trenberth. Link to his memoirs here (well worth a read): http://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7sf3160, see e.g. page 95. This is what Kevin wrote to me by e-mail: "I have a section in my memoir on deniers of climate change: see attached. These are the main ones I encountered although there is much more in memoir about problems when the Denver Post wrote an editorial about me and I was subject of numerous talk-back shows. - The current section on deniers seems much too long. The web site https://skepticalscience.com/ should probably be featured more prominently."

Regarding that website, we currently only have it under "See also" (Skeptical Science). I am trying to think of ways to give the website skepticalscience.com more limelight. What I’d need is a publication about it that talks about its impacts, I guess. I wonder if the title of the website is a bit problematic now: when I see “skeptical”, I equate that with “climate change denier”. But his website is to fight back against climate change denial. Wondering if they've ever thought about changing their name. EMsmile (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It is the denialists that should change their moniker from "skeptics" to "denialists". Scientific skeptics have complained about science deniers stealing their word, quite a while ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yea, probably too late though. I think the climate change deniers have done a thorough job of hijacking that term for themselves. We'll probably have to accept that and find a different term to what used to be called "scientific skeptics". Maybe "investigators of science" or "curious scientists" or whatever. EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Won't fly. It's the accepted name since the 1980s. There have been falied attempts to rename them ("Pseudoskeptics" from opponents, "Brights" from proponents). But this is too far away from improving the article, so, let's stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

you're right. :-)

If we want to add some statements about the skepticalscience website and work, we could perhaps use these publications (John Cook is a key author and was founder of skepticalscience long ago).

• Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., Lombardi, D., Newman, E. J., Pennycook, G., Porter, E. Rand, D. G., Rapp, D. N., Reifler, J., Roozenbeek, J., Schmid, P., Seifert, C. M., Sinatra, G. M., Swire-Thompson, B., van der Linden, S., Vraga, E. K., Wood, T. J., Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020. DOI:10.17910/b7.1182
• Cook, J. (2020). Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. New York, NY: Citadel Press. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added that content now from Kevin's memoirs where he listed names of well-known climate change scientists who can be labelled as deniers. I think this is useful information. (their climate change denial views are mostly visible in their Wikipedia articles if people click through to that) EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving some content of psychology of climate change denial to here

I know this article is already too long, and I plan to look for ways of condensing and culling in the next week or so. But in the meantime, I've looked at psychology of climate change denial more closely, trying to strip that one back to the pure psychology content. There are two sections where I feel we have a lot of overlap to here and that maybe some of that should be moved to here: the content in this section (conspiracies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_climate_change_denial#Conspiratorial_beliefs and this one (which is about terminology and "soft climate change denial" (used to be a separate article but was merged)): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_climate_change_denial#Soft_climate_change_denial . Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've brought across some content from the psychology of climate change denial and reworked that one a bit. I think that's probably all that I'd bring over from that article for now. EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking for ways to condense this article

The article is now at 72 kB readable prose length. I think we should aim to bring it down to less than 60 kB, maybe aim for 55 kB. Which areas do you think should be condensed? I think the section on conspiracy theories is currently too big and probably a bit repetitive. The section on history is also rather long and detailed but only deals with the situation in the US, really. Some US specific content could be cut or condensed to make space for including more content from other parts of the world (although I don't have publications for that at my fingertips). - Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Too scattered and newsy, with the usual load of references to conspiracies. Lots of duplications with other articles. It is the typical stage of a collage with some structure which needs to evolve towards a good quality encyclopedic entry with improved structure and focus and better balance. Cutting duplications and news may be a starting strategy. Tytire (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've condensed the section on conspiracy theories now. Next, I (or someone else) could tackle the history section and remove some of that outdated news-y type content where I regard it as too US-specific and too outdated by now. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Michael Mann wins $1 million judgement against professional deniers - LA Times

https://news.yahoo.com/column-climate-scientist-just-won-110027843.html

The case found you can have opinions and express them, but you can't attack people with known lies and misinformation represented as facts. First Alex Jones, now this.

I post this here in hopes it might be worked into this article. For example a subsection in "Responses to denialism" called "Legal consequences of denialism". -- GreenC 14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Implemented in this edit. Other editors can move it to another section if desired. Thank you for your suggestion. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nature and Science are better sources for this, have clarified that "fraudulent" was contrary to numerous investigations that had already cleared Mann of any misconduct and supported the validity of his research.. .. 11:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. But it looks like the two bullets above that needs some cleanups; they're very credulous to the denier claims. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Parejkoj. Unfortunately, it would be a huge effort for Wikipedia editors to research and explain why each and every denialist claim is wrong. Fortunately, the article's lead is clear that denial is contrary to reality, and as a practical matter, we can hope readers see the false claims in context. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The context of the Seitz claim is shown at IPCC Second Assessment Report#Chapter 8: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, and we don't need a long quote from a denier linked to a paywalled source. . .dave souza, talk 11:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Have linked conspiracy theories to clarify earlier sections. . .dave souza, talk 12:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Doubt as pseudoscientific?

I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. 80.5.192.29 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.

@IP: Climate change has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.

@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)